Can Obedience To God Earn Salvation?

[smaller]

Again, no substance. Here are my points once again. Can you address them?

Already addressed. 1,2,3

You take an incident where Satan entered Judas and completely ignore the fact that 'all of us' including Judas prior to that event 'have sinned' and 'have sin' which same SIN is of the devil. Internal temptation via the tempter IN MIND and HEART is a just a fact dadO.

Jesus showed the overlay of demons and Satan and their workings upon men on nearly every page of the N.T. in case you missed it.

I certainly don't deny greater degrees of the Providence, yes PROVIDENCE of Gods allowances in these matters.

The fact is Judas couldn't have changed what he did for all the 'freewill choices' in the world.

The life and events of Christ's earthly walk were determined long before His arrival as well as HIS betrayal. Do you seriously think the entire scenario was all just a random event by tens of thousands of freewill agents making freewill decisions?

Seriously? If you do, which you MUST in order to hold up freewill obedience, it has some very serious flaws.

Matthew 27:9
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

Psalm 41:9
Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

Acts 1:20
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Please stay on topic and stop the distractions.

Obedience from the freewill stance DEMANDS individual actions made SOLELY by same individual agents.

There are so many actions written of in the Old Testament regarding these matters they could not possibly be either 'random' or 'free.'

So do not spin falsely. This matter is directly relevant to the topic.

s

 

[Deborah13]

I believe we are ALL tempted within by THE TEMPTER. So where does that place the tempter?

I believe that this is ALL of our factual present conditions:

1 Cor. 15:
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made -


Of course that operator transpires within our minds. This is in fact an internal and unseen FACT. That is also why it is hard to perceive.

Most of us, especially freewillers, think it is only THEM there in their head and heart.

It's NOT.



There really is nothing to debate. Any believer who is honest KNOWS they are tempted by the tempter within. That places that working WITHIN. There is no debate to be had.

s

Of coarse it's satan. We weren't born with all the stinkin' thinkin' that goes on in our minds. People can say it comes from the world or whatever. satan takes the things that God created for good and corrupts them and spoon feeds us his garbage. It's up to us to reject it knowing where it came from. I might add though that the only reason we can reject it is because the Holy Spirit indwells us. He provides us with the ability to reject satan.

 

[smaller]

Of coarse it's satan. We weren't born with all the stinkin' think that goes on in our minds. People can say it comes from the world or whatever. satan takes the things that God created for good and corrupts them and spoon feeds us his garbage. It's up to us to reject it knowing where it came from.

very good understandings! don't get to say that too often.

s

 

[elijah23]

This thread came about as a result of a post I made in another thread:

"The only way one can make his salvation something earned/something of debt and not of grace is by keeping God's law sinlessly perfect. But Abraham and David both sinned so they could not earn salvation by works they needed grace and received grace by obedient faith and not works of merit.

Since the only way to gain salvation by debt and not of grace is by perfect sinlessness.....

This means any argument accusing those who do sin but obey as trying to earning salvation are bad, false arguments for obedient works do not, cannot ever earn salvation.


Would you accuse Abraham of trying to earn salvation by his obedient faith?"

It isn’t that obeying the Lord earns us anything. Obeying the Lord (by resisting temptation) keeps us safe from the painful consequences of sin.

 

[heymikey80]

I think the entire thought, from verse 31-39, is not about salvation but about perseverance in the face of persecution. Again, Paul does not write in a vacuum. These people had issues that Paul was addressing.

He starts out "What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us?"

This signals a change of focus. Before this he didn't mention anyone being "against" them. Certainly he mentions "sufferings" earlier, and ties them back in here.

Yes, Rom 8:17-18 points out the suffering of Christians. It's clear in Paul's audience that there are people causing the suffering.

"Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies; 34 who is to condemn? Is it Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us? 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"

He now lists some EARTHLY persecutions:

"Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?"

If he was talking about salvation, why would he mention things that have nothing to do with it? These things scream physical persecution. "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or..."Shall physical persecution separate us from the love of Christ? How does persecution affect salvation?

The people Paul was addressing came from a Jewish background where persecution was looked upon as a curse FROM GOD. When the Jews were in the middle of persecution, they would always assume God had abandoned them. This is what Paul is responding to. Even though you are going through tribulation and MAN MADE sufferings, this can not separate you from GOD'S LOVE. This doesn't mean we will always love God or that we will never reject His love, only that He will always love us.

"No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

My point is that these verses do not prove OSAS. They don't speak to OUR love for God, only HIS love for us. They don't speak to salvation in general, or that we will never REJECT GOD. We can reject God, as taught other places in Scripture, but He will never reject us, even though we may think He does if judged by our present circumstances.

Romans 8:38 refers to our lives. We're back to this: you're saying our lives could separate us from the love of God. To Paul: can it or not?

Does God justify us or not? Will God give us all things? Did God not say those He justified, He also glorified?

 

[dadof10]

Already addressed. 1,2,3

You take an incident where Satan entered Judas and completely ignore the fact that 'all of us' including Judas prior to that event 'have sinned' and 'have sin' which same SIN is of the devil. Internal temptation via the tempter IN MIND and HEART is a just a fact dadO.

What are you talking about? You are completely ignoring the fact that this was NOTEWORTHY. If Satan is and had always been within every believer, how is it that after the Last Supper "Satan entered" him? Scripture says Satan entered Judas after the Last Supper, you say Satan had always been there. These two views contradict. You are holding a non-Biblical doctrine. Try to focus for just one second and you will see what I'm talking about.

Jesus showed the overlay of demons and Satan and their workings upon men on nearly every page of the N.T. in case you missed it.

Then it will be easy to show a verse or two, right? Show a "named believer" who has both Satan and demons "overlaid" WITHIN THEM.

I certainly don't deny greater degrees of the Providence, yes PROVIDENCE of Gods allowances in these matters.

More gobbledegook that means nothing...

The fact is Judas couldn't have changed what he did for all the 'freewill choices' in the world.

That's not the point, is it? Again another attempt at distraction. Satan entered Judas AFTER the Last Supper. Common logic will tell you that Satan wasn't there BEFORE. This is the point.

The life and events of Christ's earthly walk were determined long before His arrival as well as HIS betrayal. Do you seriously think the entire scenario was all just a random event by tens of thousands of freewill agents making freewill decisions?

Distraction #2

Seriously? If you do, which you MUST in order to hold up freewill obedience, it has some very serious flaws.

#3

Matthew 27:9
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

Psalm 41:9
Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

Acts 1:20
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.


Obedience from the freewill stance DEMANDS individual actions made SOLELY by same individual agents.

There are so many actions written of in the Old Testament regarding these matters they could not possibly be either 'random' or 'free.'

So do not spin falsely. This matter is directly relevant to the topic.

No it isn't, what is directly related to this topic are the verses I keep posting that you keep ignoring:

"For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord."

 

[dadof10]

Of coarse it's satan. We weren't born with all the stinkin' thinkin' that goes on in our minds. People can say it comes from the world or whatever. satan takes the things that God created for good and corrupts them and spoon feeds us his garbage. It's up to us to reject it knowing where it came from. I might add though that the only reason we can reject it is because the Holy Spirit indwells us. He provides us with the ability to reject satan.

Do you think Satan dwells within our hearts and minds, like the HS, or does he tempt from outside?

 

[dadof10]

Yes, Rom 8:17-18 points out the suffering of Christians. It's clear in Paul's audience that there are people causing the suffering.

Do you think that v. 35-37 refers to earthly suffering?

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us."

He uses the same words here to describe separation from the love of Christ due to EARTHLY tribulations, as he does in verse 39 "...will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Neither case seems to refer to salvation or "Heavenly" things, only earthly.

Romans 8:38 refers to our lives. We're back to this: you're saying our lives could separate us from the love of God. To Paul: can it or not?

No. Paul plainly says that NOTHING can separate US from GOD'S LOVE. He is talking about GOD'S love, not ours. What I'm saying is that by OUR lives WE can separate OURSELVES from God. We can remove OUR love.This passage doesn't speak to this.

Does God justify us or not?

Hopefully. But even Paul had doubts about his final Justification.

Will God give us all things?

Of course. Nothing comes without God's knowledge.

Did God not say those He justified, He also glorified?

Yes. I don't see how these questions help your interpretation of verses 38-39. They simply don't refer to salvation.

 

[smaller]

What are you talking about? You are completely ignoring the fact that this was NOTEWORTHY. If Satan is and had always been within every believer, how is it that after the Last Supper "Satan entered" him? Scripture says Satan entered Judas after the Last Supper, you say Satan had always been there. These two views contradict. You are holding a non-Biblical doctrine. Try to focus for just one second and you will see what I'm talking about.

The simple point of the matter is that Judas was not alone in mind/heart and neither is anyone else in this regards when the fact of temptations, internal, of the tempter are factually placed on the table.

As it pertained to Judas was that then his own freewill standing alone? Or the Divine Purposes of God in Satan's manipulations of him to fulfill what was already written?

It was no different with Judas having Satan enter him than what it was for Peter when Satan himself spoke from his lips as well.

There is no difference. BOTH men were subjected to the workings of Satan.

So it is with any sinner. Sin is of the devil. Sin begins in mind via ENTRY of the tempter, progresses to word and finalizes in deed. And we have 'all' had and continue to have this same experience.

So, is a believer who appears to be 'externally' obedient really a true measure of what is or may be factually going on within them?

Uh, no.

There is as a continuing fact with every believer that we do come into temptations of the tempter. We should be 'exercised' by knowing that experience to have our senses honed to good and to bad, and which way to walk therein. This does not equate to our 'total obedience' because of the other party, the tempter, who is also involved within. And of course God in Christ is with us in all these things.

It is not possible to look only upon the believer in these equations of supposed obedience as there is factually two other parties also involved.

Then it will be easy to show a verse or two, right? Show a "named believer" who has both Satan and demons "overlaid" WITHIN THEM.

That's the fun part about theology. One can give examples such as Judas or Peter or Paul and what happens? This fact is immediately blinded from view from the eyes of the reader. Thank you for at least being an example of this fact.

s

 

[heymikey80]

Do you think that v. 35-37 refers to earthly suffering?

Yes. And so I think that Rom 8:38 refers to earthly dying, and earthly living. Neither "can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" Rom 8:38-39

But no one can mistake that God's love is spiritual love, not earthly. No one can mistake that God's justification, His glorification, His calling, are all spiritual.

Paul is stating, this spiritual love makes us superconquerors through Him because they are from overwhelming spiritual power, and cannot be touched by earthly powers or spiritual. Romans 8:38-39 includes even spiritual powers of Paul's time.

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us."

He uses the same words here to describe separation from the love of Christ due to EARTHLY tribulations, as he does in verse 39 "...will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Paul denies this separation exists. Paul is saying "If you thought these things were capable of separating you: forget it." They aren't able to do so.

In fact Paul's expression uses the term for "no power" -- that is, they don't have any power to do this.

Neither case seems to refer to salvation or "Heavenly" things, only earthly.

On the contrary, they're definitely talking about spiritual things, not earthly. Justification isn't in an earthly court, but a spiritual one. Predestination, earthly? Nothing of the sort. Foreknowledge? Or in Rom 8:31-37 -- the earthly charges are indeed being charged against Christians! They're being persecuted. So where are these charges being brought, where Paul claims they're prohibited? Heaven. Before God. Where is it that God justifies people: an earthly court? Not likely. Virtually no appearance of God has occurred in an earthly court at this time. Instead, God justifies people in Heaven.

Plus, on the flipside of Rom 8:38-39: "nor angels nor authorities, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers" angels, earthly? In Paul's day, "authorities" and "powers" referred to the unseen powers that kept the world in continuous motion -- to Gentiles these would be the spiritual demigods.

So Paul is not excluding but rather he is including the spiritual.

 

[dadof10]

The simple point of the matter is that Judas was not alone in mind/heart and neither is anyone else in this regards when the fact of temptations, internal, of the tempter are factually placed on the table.

Did Judas steal money from Jesus and the Apostles, yes or no? Was it before "Satan entered" him, yes or no? Just answer these simple questions, please.

 

[smaller]

Did Judas steal money from Jesus and the Apostles, yes or no? Was it before "Satan entered" him, yes or no? Just answer these simple questions, please.

Why is it you insist on seeing only Judas when that is obviously not the case whatsoever.

What Judas did was planned by God Himself, down to the LAST detail.

There was not one bit of freewill that Judas could have exercised to avoid

AS IT IS WRITTEN.

The fact will remain that sin is of the devil. There is no way to sever that worker from the equations in any person.

Can a believer be obedient? Certainly. Can the tempter be obedient?

Never.

Both workings transpire in all of us.

Those who claim exemption to internal temptation of the tempter are doing so as pawns. They can do nothing about it until the are led to understand it's a fact. Til then it will remain a coverup in such.

s

 

[dadof10]

Yes. And so I think that Rom 8:38 refers to earthly dying, and earthly living. Neither "can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" Rom 8:38-39

Ok, I agree. Again, from the LOVE OF GOD. It comes to US. This doesn't speak to our love for God.

But no one can mistake that God's love is spiritual love, not earthly. No one can mistake that God's justification, His glorification, His calling, are all spiritual.

True.

Paul is stating, this spiritual love makes us superconquerors through Him because they are from overwhelming spiritual power, and cannot be touched by earthly powers or spiritual. Romans 8:38-39 includes even spiritual powers of Paul's time.

Yes, it seems like a mix of spiritual and temporal things in v.38-39.

Paul denies this separation exists. Paul is saying "If you thought these things were capable of separating you: forget it." They aren't able to do so.

Right, they aren't capable of separating us from God's love, not from salvation.

In fact Paul's expression uses the term for "no power" -- that is, they don't have any power to do this.

Yep, again to separate us from God's love.

On the contrary, they're definitely talking about spiritual things, not earthly. Justification isn't in an earthly court, but a spiritual one. Predestination, earthly? Nothing of the sort. Foreknowledge? Or in Rom 8:31-37 -- the earthly charges are indeed being charged against Christians! They're being persecuted. So where are these charges being brought, where Paul claims they're prohibited? Heaven. Before God. Where is it that God justifies people: an earthly court? Not likely. Virtually no appearance of God has occurred in an earthly court at this time. Instead, God justifies people in Heaven.

OK. You are right that the list of things in v.38-39 include spiritual things, but the list in v.35 does not. You're claim is that Paul means basically nothing can separate us from salvation. We are saved no matter what WE do. I don't think that's his point. Let's reword the two "separate" verses with your view and see if it makes sense.

"Who shall separate us from salvation? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?"

How can "famine or nakedness" separate us from salvation? In what context could that happen? What about distress or the sword? This obviously can't be his meaning.

"For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from salvation."

How could any of these things separate us from salvation? "Angels"? "Principalities"? Height or depth??? This is nonsensical. How could someone misunderstand that these things could effect salvation? They COULD, however, think that trials were CURSES and therefore signs that God had abandoned them. That makes sense, especially considering the Jewish attitude throughout the OT.

If the words were "I am sure that neither adultery, nor murder, nor fornication, nor drunkenness...", things traditionally thought to effect salvation, then you might have a point, but the things mentioned don't fit for salvation. It's like saying "Nothing can stop our offense from getting into the end zone. Not sandwiches, nor justice, nor coffee..." It just doesn't fit.

 

[dadof10]

Why is it you insist on seeing only Judas when that is obviously not the case whatsoever.

What Judas did was planned by God Himself, down to the LAST detail.

There was not one bit of freewill that Judas could have exercised to avoid

AS IT IS WRITTEN.

The fact will remain that sin is of the devil. There is no way to sever that worker from the equations in any person.

Can a believer be obedient? Certainly. Can the tempter be obedient?

Never.

Both workings transpire in all of us.

Those who claim exemption to internal temptation of the tempter are doing so as pawns. They can do nothing about it until the are led to understand it's a fact. Til then it will remain a coverup in such.

s

Bye-bye

 

[heymikey80]

OK. You are right that the list of things in v.38-39 include spiritual things, but the list in v.35 does not.

OK, I agree that the list at v. 35 doesn't refer to a specific spiritual item. In fact I agree, v. 35 is referring to actual direct experiences of Christians, experiences that can't be denied, either.

However, the sentence of v. 35 is asking a question; the sentence at v. 38-39 is answering that same question, in fact by reiterating the statement of the question.

So why would Paul point out the items at v. 35? I think it's because he's showing the futility of these items -- admittedly oppressive items -- to defeat God's love. When Paul gets to v. 38-39, he's extending his argument beyond, to really anything created in comparison with the Creator.

You're claim is that Paul means basically nothing can separate us from salvation. We are saved no matter what WE do.

Not specifically. Paul is basically saying nothing created can separate us from God. That includes OUR lives, and OUR deaths. It seems pretty clear, someone else doesn't die; we do. So correspondingly, someone else doesn't live; we do.

I don't think that's his point. Let's reword the two "separate" verses with your view and see if it makes sense.

"Who shall separate us from salvation? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?"

How can "famine or nakedness" separate us from salvation? In what context could that happen? What about distress or the sword? This obviously can't be his meaning.

Um, oh yes it can. Paul is addressing new Christians. A lot of this is new to them.

When Rome captured armies, they often redeemed them. That is, they could be sent in as gladiator-slaves. They could be sold as slaves. And they could also be adopted, even converted to Roman citizens, should they succeed in Roman life as a gladiator, for instance.

Paul is saying, Roman capture doesn't take them out of God's family, doesn't convert them, doesn't re-enslave them.

Rome and Israel are religious-based nations, and this is the way they work.

But the revelation for Christians is, you can be imprisoned, and still win, spiritually. That's what Paul means for this.

This concept was revolutionarily new. Christian performance under death in the Stadia was absolutely new and convincing to many Romans. It drew more converts than preaching.

That's an insight Paul brought home. Paul found, while in chains, the Spirit of God was invading the spirit of this world. Even in prisons.

So I think we agree that there is a distinction between the two, earthly and spiritual. I think we agree that Paul is addressing persecution with a new insight. I find though that Paul is drawing on our salvation as the reason for the new insight, and saying, "We're winning, the Spirit is invading prisons and chains and advancing the Gospel to save souls. Don't think of it as defeat. Think of it as super-conquering, even in chains!"

"For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from salvation."

How could any of these things separate us from salvation? "Angels"? "Principalities"? Height or depth??? This is nonsensical. How could someone misunderstand that these things could effect salvation? They COULD, however, think that trials were CURSES and therefore signs that God had abandoned them. That makes sense, especially considering the Jewish attitude throughout the OT.

Oh, yes. It's often been said through other religious systems, that a rebellious spirit -- an angel (or daemon), or a Principality (controller of a planet or constellation) can change your destiny. Paul's extending his argument. No other religion, not even another created spiritual power in this world can separate you.

If the words were "I am sure that neither adultery, nor murder, nor fornication, nor drunkenness...", things traditionally thought to effect salvation, then you might have a point, but the things mentioned don't fit for salvation. It's like saying "Nothing can stop our offense from getting into the end zone. Not sandwiches, nor justice, nor coffee..." It just doesn't fit.

Life. Death. Paul includes it all, the moment he put "life" in the list. Because the only life he could mean is our life.

You're right about your initial perception that Paul is talking about persecution. But Paul goes way farther at the end, moving his argument to "any created thing". That extension specifically calls on our individual experiences as being incapable of separating us:

"For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation" Rom 8:38-39a

Paul iterates over it -- my life or death; my present nor future; my height nor depth. And frankly, these either apply directly to us (and clearly in the passage, we who are persecuted as well), or they really make no sense being listed. That's assurance to people under persecution that they haven't been abandoned by God -- the model has changed, and they've been sent behind enemy lines.

 

[dadof10]

OK, I agree that the list at v. 35 doesn't refer to a specific spiritual item. In fact I agree, v. 35 is referring to actual direct experiences of Christians, experiences that can't be denied, either.

However, the sentence of v. 35 is asking a question; the sentence at v. 38-39 is answering that same question, in fact by reiterating the statement of the question.

I don't think so. The answer to the question is in v. 37.

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us."

So why would Paul point out the items at v. 35? I think it's because he's showing the futility of these items -- admittedly oppressive items -- to defeat God's love.

Right.

When Paul gets to v. 38-39, he's extending his argument beyond, to really anything created in comparison with the Creator.

Right. AGAIN, from the LOVE OF GOD, not salvation.

Not specifically. Paul is basically saying nothing created can separate us from God.

No, sorry. Nice try. From the LOVE of God, not "from God". In both instances he says the LOVE of God.

That includes OUR lives, and OUR deaths. It seems pretty clear, someone else doesn't die; we do. So correspondingly, someone else doesn't live; we do.

I think he's talking about the general concepts of life and death, but suppose you are right, It would be quite a stretch to say that Paul is saying here that ANYTHING we do, our entire existence, has no effect on our salvation. Again, he is talking about the love of God, not salvation. "Neither our life nor our death...can separate us from salvation" makes even less sense.

How can "famine or nakedness" separate us from salvation? In what context could that happen? What about distress or the sword? This obviously can't be his meaning.

Um, oh yes it can. Paul is addressing new Christians. A lot of this is new to them.

When Rome captured armies, they often redeemed them. That is, they could be sent in as gladiator-slaves. They could be sold as slaves. And they could also be adopted, even converted to Roman citizens, should they succeed in Roman life as a gladiator, for instance.

Paul is saying, Roman capture doesn't take them out of God's family, doesn't convert them, doesn't re-enslave them.

Rome and Israel are religious-based nations, and this is the way they work.

But the revelation for Christians is, you can be imprisoned, and still win, spiritually. That's what Paul means for this.

This concept was revolutionarily new. Christian performance under death in the Stadia was absolutely new and convincing to many Romans. It drew more converts than preaching.

That's an insight Paul brought home. Paul found, while in chains, the Spirit of God was invading the spirit of this world. Even in prisons.

So I think we agree that there is a distinction between the two, earthly and spiritual. I think we agree that Paul is addressing persecution with a new insight. I find though that Paul is drawing on our salvation as the reason for the new insight, and saying, "We're winning, the Spirit is invading prisons and chains and advancing the Gospel to save souls. Don't think of it as defeat. Think of it as super-conquering, even in chains!"

I agree that a lot of the persecution came from the Romans, but you'll have to explain more how this ties into the subject and how it helps you prove Paul means "salvation" by "the love of God".

I think he is addressing persecution with "new insight", as you put it, but, as I've been saying, this insight comes from the fact that the Jews looked upon any persecution as God abandoning His people. They thought "tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword" meant that God was angry or was withholding His love. Paul says, no way because "As it is written, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." Even before Jesus came, God didn't abandon His people. Again, this makes no sense in light of salvation.

How could any of these things separate us from salvation? "Angels"? "Principalities"? Height or depth??? This is nonsensical. How could someone misunderstand that these things could effect salvation? They COULD, however, think that trials were CURSES and therefore signs that God had abandoned them. That makes sense, especially considering the Jewish attitude throughout the OT.

Oh, yes. It's often been said through other religious systems, that a rebellious spirit -- an angel (or daemon), or a Principality (controller of a planet or constellation) can change your destiny. Paul's extending his argument. No other religion, not even another created spiritual power in this world can separate you.

Wow, that's quite a reach. I don't think he is thinking of any "other religious systems", only Judaism. No part of Romans references any "other religion" but Judaism. After the verses in question Paul says:

"I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen."

I think there is only one other religious system on his mind, Judaism and how the converts are assimilating into Christianity.

Life. Death. Paul includes it all, the moment he put "life" in the list. Because the only life he could mean is our life.

Of "life" in general.

You're right about your initial perception that Paul is talking about persecution. But Paul goes way farther at the end, moving his argument to "any created thing". That extension specifically calls on our individual experiences as being incapable of separating us:

"For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation" Rom 8:38-39a

Paul iterates over it -- my life or death; my present nor future; my height nor depth. And frankly, these either apply directly to us (and clearly in the passage, we who are persecuted as well), or they really make no sense being listed. That's assurance to people under persecution that they haven't been abandoned by God -- the model has changed, and they've been sent behind enemy lines.

And I think you're right here. It just doesn't equate to salvation. It's the love of God.

 

[heymikey80]

I don't think so. The answer to the question is in v. 37.

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us."

"shall separate us from the love of Christ" -- v. 35a
"shall separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" -- v. 39b.

Rom 8:38-39 is stating exactly the same thing as Rom 8:35 -- because it simply is the exact same construction.

The statement is the same. The exclusions of one are different from the exclusions of the other. But they're both exclusions.

Paul is extending the exclusions from one verse to the other.

Right. AGAIN, from the LOVE OF GOD, not salvation.

AGAIN, the question comes as to whether God's "loving people to Hell" or not.

"Agapao" -- on our behalf. That's not going to be "loving people to Hell".

No, sorry. Nice try. From the LOVE of God, not "from God". In both instances he says the LOVE of God.

Not bothered with this qualification, but ... at some point you're going to have to admit that love doesn't result in being walled off from God, when humanity was built for relationship with God. That would be wrong; and I'm pretty sure God doesn't have a desire to do wrong.

I think he's talking about the general concepts of life and death, but suppose you are right, It would be quite a stretch to say that Paul is saying here that ANYTHING we do, our entire existence, has no effect on our salvation. Again, he is talking about the love of God, not salvation. "Neither our life nor our death...can separate us from salvation" makes even less sense.

We're talking about a specific set of people: those saved by God's grace. We're not talking about everybody.

Because it's quite certain that for those not saved by God's grace, their actions do indeed have an effect on their salvation.

If it were "general" life & death, there's almost nothing Paul could mean by that. And certainly it would be no encouragement to anyone that "God didn't make life or death in general to be able to separate you; but it can in your specific case."

I agree that a lot of the persecution came from the Romans, but you'll have to explain more how this ties into the subject and how it helps you prove Paul means "salvation" by "the love of God".

"how"? Pretty directly, I've no need to push this into the argument, as far as I know. I'm simply answering your issues with Paul's statement.

Romans 8:28-29 describes steps to salvation as to what God does for those He saves. Romans 8:30 asks "What do we respond to these things?" He's talking about the saved in Romans 8:29. So he's talking about the saved in Romans 8:30. Two arguments, here: (1) Why would the unsaved have any response to how God saves people? (2) Paul asks what "we" are responding.

I think he is addressing persecution with "new insight", as you put it, but, as I've been saying, this insight comes from the fact that the Jews looked upon any persecution as God abandoning His people. They thought "tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword" meant that God was angry or was withholding His love. Paul says, no way because "As it is written, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." Even before Jesus came, God didn't abandon His people. Again, this makes no sense in light of salvation.

But the assertion betrays the concept. "Even before Jesus came, God didn't abandon His people."

And it would make no sense to me to go through a list of things that aren't God (:35,:38-39), to claim that God isn't doing something.

In point of fact what Paul is doing is he is pointing out both a prophetic and an historical fact that God does not abandon His people -- and yet they are persecuted for His sake. "For your sake ..."

Wow, that's quite a reach. I don't think he is thinking of any "other religious systems", only Judaism. No part of Romans references any "other religion" but Judaism.

Judaism is in this same boat, dadof10. They're making exactly these same claims at this point in their history. cf http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/toc/code=1336

Or pick up a copy of the "Book of Enoch" for a vivid picture of these principalities at work in apocalyptic literature. They can be found in limited numbers in chapters of Daniel as well.

After the verses in question Paul says:

"I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen."

I think there is only one other religious system on his mind, Judaism and how the converts are assimilating into Christianity.

It wouldn't change the interpretation if Paul were speaking strictly to Jewish Christians. But frankly, Romans 9 is speaking specifically to Jewish non-Christians.

And it's quite clear from the very start of Romans, Paul is speaking of "also, Greeks" -- Gentile culture.

Of "life" in general.

Which Pulls the teeth of the verse, making it not worth its parchment if "Life in particular still kills you spiritually." Paul honestly doesn't mean anything if these passages are general.

And I think you're right here. It just doesn't equate to salvation. It's the love of God.

It's the glorification of those God foreknew, predestined, called, justified. (Rom 8:29) That's who are responding (Rom 8:30). And that's who Rom 8:38-39 is talking about.

 

[dadof10]

"shall separate us from the love of Christ" -- v. 35a
"shall separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" -- v. 39b.

Rom 8:38-39 is stating exactly the same thing as Rom 8:35 -- because it simply is the exact same construction.

The statement is the same. The exclusions of one are different from the exclusions of the other. But they're both exclusions.

Paul is extending the exclusions from one verse to the other.

I agree with this. What I disagreed with in the previous post was your contention that v. 38-39 ANSWERED the question of v. 35. The question ("Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?") is answered in v. 37 ("No, in all these things we are more than conquerors..."). It's really a small point, but a point anyway .

Let's take a look at your contention above. You say "The statement is the same. The exclusions of one are different from the exclusions of the other. But they're both exclusions."

This is why I believe these verses refer to overcoming persecution, not salvation. If by "love of Christ" or "love of God in Christ" Paul was referring to salvation, he would have to be reacting to an assertion that "tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword" (earthly things) could EFFECT OUR SALVATION in some way, otherwise, why say it? I'll ask again, how could this happen? How could these things effect salvation? If Paul is writing to only "those saved by God's grace", why would he include these "exclusions" unless there was some sort of misunderstanding, and in what context would this misunderstanding come? Were there SAVED people who thought that their SALVATION hinged on their tribulations?

So, when Paul moves on to some Heavenly things ("death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation), he is doubling down on his PREVIOUS point because, as you rightly point out, it is the same sentence construction. He is STILL on his previous point, though, he doesn't move onto salvation just because he mentions some Heavenly things. His point is still that persecution, even if the persecution comes from "powers" or "principalities" or "angels", doesn't mean that God has removed His love from us, AS WAS THE JEWISH MINDSET OF THE TIME.

AGAIN, the question comes as to whether God's "loving people to Hell" or not.

"Agapao" -- on our behalf. That's not going to be "loving people to Hell".

No, the question is not even being asked, let alone answered. Paul is not talking about Heaven and Hell. He's not speaking to this subject. You are misunderstanding his point.

Not bothered with this qualification, but ... at some point you're going to have to admit that love doesn't result in being walled off from God, when humanity was built for relationship with God. That would be wrong; and I'm pretty sure God doesn't have a desire to do wrong.

Poisoning the well...Humanity is made to love and serve God. That's not the point. The point is whether WE can wall OURSELVES off from God. God NEVER walls us off, we do that with our disobedience.

We're talking about a specific set of people: those saved by God's grace. We're not talking about everybody.

Because it's quite certain that for those not saved by God's grace, their actions do indeed have an effect on their salvation.

Huh? I'm confused by your view. Can people "not saved" earn their way into being saved by "their actions"?

If it were "general" life & death, there's almost nothing Paul could mean by that. And certainly it would be no encouragement to anyone that "God didn't make life or death in general to be able to separate you; but it can in your specific case."

Yes there is, if he means that persecution doesn't equal a curse from God, which is what he's reacting to. First he says that "tribulation, or distress, or persecution" won't separate us from God's love. Certainly there were some who were killed for their faith, so Paul moves from suffering and persecution to life and death.

Secondly, there are PEOPLE who are persecuting them, so Paul moves on from people (the "who" in v. 31, 33, 35) to angels, principalities and powers to stress his point, which is, NOTHING IN CREATION, even Heavenly beings or life and death itself, can keep God from loving us.

Remember, your take is that by "life and death" Paul means MY life and MY death (speaking specifically about himself) then switches to the broad "nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth". Since EVERYTHING else here refers to GENERALITIES, it's safe to assume that by "life and death" he is speaking of these terms in GENERAL.

Romans 8:28-29 describes steps to salvation as to what God does for those He saves. Romans 8:30 asks "What do we respond to these things?" He's talking about the saved in Romans 8:29. So he's talking about the saved in Romans 8:30. Two arguments, here: (1) Why would the unsaved have any response to how God saves people? (2) Paul asks what "we" are responding.

Ok, but he moves on. First, he ends his thought at verse 30, then he moves on from describing the "saved" to responding to the question "What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us?". If the saved are "predestined...called...justified...glorified" why are there persecutions?

But the assertion betrays the concept. "Even before Jesus came, God didn't abandon His people."

And it would make no sense to me to go through a list of things that aren't God (:35,:38-39), to claim that God isn't doing something.

In point of fact what Paul is doing is he is pointing out both a prophetic and an historical fact that God does not abandon His people -- and yet they are persecuted for His sake. "For your sake ..."

Yes. That's his point here, not that our lives don't effect our salvation.

Judaism is in this same boat, dadof10. They're making exactly these same claims at this point in their history. cf http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/toc/code=1336

Or pick up a copy of the "Book of Enoch" for a vivid picture of these principalities at work in apocalyptic literature. They can be found in limited numbers in chapters of Daniel as well.

My point is not that Judaism didn't teach there are "principalities", but that Paul is not reacting to any ROMAN system, but to how Jewish converts view suffering.

It wouldn't change the interpretation if Paul were speaking strictly to Jewish Christians. But frankly, Romans 9 is speaking specifically to Jewish non-Christians.

Really. Romans 1 tells us who this letter is written to. "To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints:..." How are non-believers "called to be saints"? Either way, this doesn't help you make your point about v. 39. You have already said you believe this is written to "those saved by God's grace", not all people.

And it's quite clear from the very start of Romans, Paul is speaking of "also, Greeks" -- Gentile culture.

The whole letter is written to a group of believers in Rome, both Greek and Jewish converts. There are different sections that deal with different problems within the Church. 8:31-39 is dealing with the FACT that Jewish converts looked upon persecution as a curse from God. It does not refer to salvation.

Which Pulls the teeth of the verse, making it not worth its parchment if "Life in particular still kills you spiritually." Paul honestly doesn't mean anything if these passages are general.

It's the glorification of those God foreknew, predestined, called, justified. (Rom 8:29) That's who are responding (Rom 8:30). And that's who Rom 8:38-39 is talking about.

You can't just take the word "life" by itself and interpret it away from everything else in the passage. It is part of a larger thought: "neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation..." To pluck the word "life" out and interpret it as "my life", then interpret THAT to mean "nothing I do in my life can keep me from Heaven" is a huge stretch.

I'm sure we are going to have to agree to disagree her, Mikey. I just don't see where these verses apply to salvation.

 

[heymikey80]

I agree with this. What I disagreed with in the previous post was your contention that v. 38-39 ANSWERED the question of v. 35. The question ("Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?") is answered in v. 37 ("No, in all these things we are more than conquerors..."). It's really a small point, but a point anyway .

Let's take a look at your contention above. You say "The statement is the same. The exclusions of one are different from the exclusions of the other. But they're both exclusions."

This is why I believe these verses refer to overcoming persecution, not salvation.

There's no intervening question. The answer of Paul to the question at v. 35 is Rom 8:36-39.

Paul's answer is an answer of typical length of the time. Paul asks rhetorically about a group of persecutions, whether they would separate us from God's love (:35b). His answer is Scripture -- Rom 8:36. Paul is pointing out that this verse points to those God loves, who are being persecuted. It's a demonstration: God's people are persecuted, and do not lose God's love.

Then comes Paul's interpretation and really his opinion of the argument, that when he looks at it, nothing created can separate us from God's love.

Sure, it's persecution. But Paul is emphasizing the plain fact: that God's love is unaffected by persecution.

Now, do you think brainwashing is persecution? Do you think extorting a denial is persecution? Do you think introducing doubts as an opposed culture like the Roman one is persecution? Of course it is. Paul is saying none of this can separate us from the love of God in Christ -- which love saves us.

And therein lies the very serious problem with in, then out, salvation. Paul is saying it's not going to have an effect on those who have been justified (Rom 8:28-29). The power is simply not there for created things to overcome the Uncreated.

That's where, and I think clearly why, Paul coins the term, "superconqueror", or "supervictor". "hypernike".

Now we can talk about where that bar of justification appears. We can discuss how God predestines people, how He calls people as well. But Paul didn't leave a crack of daylight for anything to enter. Once someone is justified by God, there's no loss of love; and no loss of salvation.

 

[heymikey80]

No, the question is not even being asked, let alone answered. Paul is not talking about Heaven and Hell. He's not speaking to this subject. You are misunderstanding his point.

Paul is already talking about salvation. Paul's reference to persecution begins at Rom 8:18. But note at Rom 8:17, Paul uses the term "glorified" to talk about salvation. We're to be glorified with Christ through our resurrection (cf Rom 8:13).

Paul maintains this thought. "justification" and "glorification" are reiterated at Rom 8:28-29, sweeping across both the immediate of Rom 8 and further back at Rom 3-5.

It's just not tenable that Paul is limiting himself to "God's still around in persecution". Paul is actually saying that those justified and glorified by God, there is no created thing that will counteract that. And that includes the corrupt world's introduction of doubt, just in normal living. It's a pernicious form of persecution -- continued life -- but it's clear.

It's on his list.

Paul cites it (Rom 8:38).

And Paul denies it of force.